Why Republicans take Kristol seriously remains a mystery to me.

But he was so good in Blazing Saddles.

Kristol has, for at least a year or two now, been a joke. He should be ignored by anyone interested in seriously discussing any important issue. I've begun to suspect that his columns are just a wildly improvisational game of Mad-Libs that he's somehow tricked the New York Times into printing.

William The Bloody is always wrong about everything. So of course he is a respected front man for the modern GOP.

Nate Silver, via Balloon Juice, thinks this is a coordinated roll-out of a new new new new McCain campaign, given that Kristol, Halperin, and Politico are all reporting something similar:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/is-drudge-priming-mccain-reboot.html

Republicans can take Kristol seriously because they seem to follow Palin's advice of never looking back; and besides he strokes their ego.

Now why the New York Times takes him seriously enough to print and pay him for his tripe ... THAT truly is a mystery.

Kristol and his neoconservative ilk are intellectually, morally, and most probably at this moment in our history, financially bankrupt! They and their names will be fodder for future children rhymes known for tales of corruption and malfeasance. -Kevo

Kristol is near the top of the list among those prominent Republicans who contributed to McCain losing this election. Key among his feats was singing Palin's praises early last summer long before most of us had heard of her. Thanks for the freak show Bill!

So are all Republicans erratic, or just those giving advice to McCain?

Like Krusty, Krisol is a Klown

He's in CYA mode. A year from now he'll report that he advised McCain on the right strategy while totally ignoring the fact that most of the time it was wrong. There's nothing like fair-weather friends. They are all gearing up to resume trashing McCain again.

I'm with Nick N. - why on earth does the New York Times print Kristol's tripe? The Times did not need to stoop so low to find a conservative columnist.

Danp:

Why Republicans take Kristol seriously remains a mystery to me.

But he was so good in Blazing Saddles.

City Slickers?

Kristol still seems to believe that re-branding is the key. If they can just properly package McCain he'll win. How many McCains have there been in this campaign? I've lost track. How many statements have been disavowed or explained away?

Meanwhile, Obama is still pretty much the same candidate that he always was. With the economic uncertainties we face, steadiness and constancy are a virtue.

Dad. That's why they take him seriously. The most important principle in modern conservatism is nepotism.

Just sounds like someone is jealous that their fellow columnist won a little prize today and they didn't get anything.

I don't have any doubts why the conservatives take Kristol seriously, but why the New York Times does, I'll never know.

I wonder why he chose to publicly broadcast his advice to McCain, when it would've been easier to simply pick up the phone and tell him -

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/104/story/27096.html

"McCain's foreign-policy team is sprinkled with people, including Scheunemann, who were ardent backers of the 2003 Iraq invasion and who dismissed critics who warned of unintended consequences. They include former CIA Director James Woolsey, an adviser mostly on energy security, and William Kristol, the editor of the conservative Weekly Standard."

My guess is that Kristol, is really playing a game of CYA with the NYT readers. When McCain loses, he can say that he warned McCain to alter his campaign tactics.

The key to having people like Kristol and Hugh Hewitt no longer be relevant to anyone is to stop reading their work. Stop supporting them. When you read what they write, when you listen to what they say, when you click on a link to one of their articles, you are supporting them. Because their employers don't need you to respect them, they don't need you to like them. All you need to do is buy their work, read it, waste time talking about it, and they've succeeded. Their employer's bottom line is revenue.

Stop supporting them. When you do, their readership will decline and they won't be profitable anymore.

WTF?!?

So, let's see. Fire the campaign staff 3 weeks before the general election -- that should be great. You'll have people running around trying to figure out what's going on for at least a couple of days.

Of course, this will do nothing to curb the charges of an "erratic" campaign being run by McCain. Look at this weekend's news. There was going to be a policy proposal, then there wasn't, then there maybe was, then they tell us about a new proposal only they make clear it's not really new and, finally, they've decided to remake the entire campaign strategy. Is this how they're planning to run the country as well?

"serious but cheerful candidate."

Sounds like Santa.

I think McCain should take up Kristol's "latest" advice post haste. Totally remake your campaign and reinvent yourself with 3 weeks to go. I love this plan.

There's also this:

Provide total media accessibility on their campaign planes and buses. Kick most of the aides off and send them out to swing states to work for the state coordinators on getting voters to the polls. Keep just a minimal staff to help organize the press conferences McCain and Palin should have at every stop and the TV interviews they should do at every location.

Because we remember how well it worked last time Palin was set free to talk to the media.

And this:

He can explain that our enemies won’t take a vacation because the markets are down, and that it’s not unimportant that he’s ready to be commander in chief. He can remind voters that even in a recession, the president appoints federal judges — and that his judges won’t legislate from the bench.

Fear and red-meat social issues worked so well last time, why shouldn't they work now? Finance, shminance.

Bill Crystal Meth is my hero.

Love,

Ly'in Sarah, the credibility Maverick

PS Anybody seen my First Dud? I need to fire some folks in the media, you betcha, for not explaining how the bipartisan report that stated that I was guilty of violating ethics laws actually vindicated me. Sheese, by golly, this media, you know is like so biased and all. How dare they report what the report actually said!

It sounds to me like Bill Kristol is in the tank for John McCain.

Oh...and that tank is full of Tequila. And warm donkey pee.

And let McCain go back to what he's been good at in the past -- running as a cheerful, open and accessible candidate. -- Kristol

Kristol's judgment is, as always, Weakly Substandard. By now, it's impossible for McCain to become "cheerful", as advised. By now, it wouldn't have been authentic any more, because McCain's *not cheerful*; he's angry (and visibly so). The cheerful past is gone, with no possibility of return.

"Why Republicans take Kristol seriously remains a mystery to me."

Why the NYTimes gives this hack a column is a mystery to me.

What disturbs me most is that the Republicans have no sense that something is wrong with their ideology, that perhaps it simply doesn't work in the real world, that it has been a failure, and that they need to change course.

Ironically, the Democrats long ago came to the conclusion that liberalism is bad politically, and they still cling to that notion, afraid to fight for liberal principles. But liberalism didn't get run off the tracks by failure - it was Johnson's obsession with Vietnam that started its downfall. Then Reagan finished it off.

The reason McCain's campaign has come apart is that they recognize they can't run on the party ideology in the face of what's happened over the last eight years, but that they refuse to acknowledge their policies don't work. So they're constantly charging into a brick wall.

If only these crackpots would see the light, but they won't, they can't, perhaps never will. Maybe someone will come along and move the Republicans in a new direction, leaving these wingnuts in the dust of history. It really would be so much better for the country, two parties looking forward, trying to produce a better world.

It seems as though Bill Kristol and John McCain change their campaign tactics as often as they change their minds.

But then again great minds think alike right?

So why do GOPers take Kristol seriously? Because nobody wants to insult Kid Kristol for fear Daddy Kristol will keep them from getting fellowships at the AEI.

Kristol was on Fox yesterday saying that no serious conservative is against regulation. And that every free market person acknowledges the need for strong banking oversight. He even managed to say it with a straight face.

I thouhgt the NYT hired him around as a humor columnist.

"serious but cheerful candidate."

Sounds like Santa.
Posted by: Saint Zak

Couldn't be---McCain's older, uglier, meaner, and a worse pilot than Santa. I mean, c'mon---Santa losing 5 sleighs would mean losing 40 reindeer. You don't think the ASPCA, the Humane Society, and the PETA police wouldn't have hunted him down for that? Besides---I have it on the best of authority that Santa Claus hates Budweiser with a passion bordering on the homicidal....

That someone is wrong 19 out of 20 times does not disqualify them from being one of the intellectual pillors of our country. Unless they are dumbocraps & then being wrong 1 of 20 times disqualifies them.

As only republicans can be recognized for intellectual superiority, we also get to interpret current events to the world. Therefore, just because Sarah was determined to have broken the law in the report Friday does not mean that she was not exonerated!

Kristol's advice is actually pretty good. But too late to do much good.

McCain's not effective being nasty -- comes across as a crotchety old man. Letting him be mavericky in town hall settings, where he talks in generalities while Palin takes the low road (no one in American politics is nastier than Palin), might have been enough for him to grind out a win.

McCain's biggest problem isn't tactics. I bet he has the attention span of a sparkler and the self-restraint of a junkie. IOW, those hardening arteries are making themselves apparent. He talks things over with his staff, they all agree on what today's tack will be, and then when the lights go on, he forgets what they all agreed to, blurts out some new idiocy, and the staff has to re-write the strategy book, again, to reflect the New Reality.

I don't remember Kristol being in Blazing Saddles, there were too many horses' asses to tell one from the other.

Skimming over Kristol's piece this morning, it occurred to me that his underlying point is that McCain is a horrible manager who's hired lots of incompetents who are bad and their jobs, and who has overseen a spectacularly dysfunctional, inept, bankrupt and disorganized campaign, whereas Obama is a great manager who has appointed competent people and oversees a well-running and well-funded campaign, and therefore we should....vote for John McCain.

Even BIGGER mystery....

Why the Times hired him and why they continue to pay him today. My hope is that after the election, he gets TIMEed out.

As I've said before, Bill Kristolball is the most acurate prognosticating pundit in the world. All you have to do is the exact opposite of what he suggest.

That fact that the McCain campaign will probably ignore his latest "advice" does not bode well for the Obama/Biden campaign.

Obama Born In Kenya? His Grandmother Says Yes
Filed under Opinion Editorials, Media objectivity, USA foreign policy, US elections, Law and courts on 10/13/2008 By: .

Someone is lying. According to Obama's Kenyan (paternal) grandmother, as well as his half-brother and half-sister, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii as the Democratic candidate for president claims. His grandmother bragged that her grandson is about to be President of the United States and is so proud because she was present DURING HIS BIRTH IN KENYA, in the delivery room. -This, according to several news sites and Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg (see video below) who is, surprisingly, a life long democrat himself. Berg is the former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and he has an impressive background in his activities as a democrat, but his support for the party seemingly stops when it comes to his trust in Barack Hussein Obama.

Many U.S. voters are suspicious of the Democratic candidate's past, and Berg filed a lawsuit to force Barack Hussein Obama to produce a certified copy of his original birth certificate to prove that he can run for the office of President of the United States. However, he is being fought. The DNC On Sept. 24 filed a motion to dismiss the Berg action. Why? What is there to hide? Why not produce the original birth certificate and be done with all the suspicions against Barack Hussein Obama?

A few months back, a birth certificate WAS posted on the internet which shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. Yet some say this birth certificate is a forgery and again, his grandmother states that she was present at the birth, in Kenya. So what is the truth?

One explanation is that Obama's mother Ann Dunham, flew to Kenya in 1961 with Obama's father to meet his family. According to some news reports, Ann Dunham, was not accepted well by her husband's family because she was white:
"Obama's family did not take to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama very well, because she was white, according to Sarah Obama. Shortly after she arrived in Kenya Stanley Ann decided to return to Hawaii because she later said, she did not like how Muslim men treated their wives in Kenya. However, because she was near term the airline would not let her fly until after the birth of her baby. Obama's grandmother said the baby—Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.—was born in Kenya and that shortly after he was born, Stanley Ann returned to Hawaii."

However, by the time she wanted to leave Kenya, it was during the late stages of her pregnancy. She was not able to board a plane because the airlines wouldn't allow women so close to birth to fly. It is instead believed, that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya as his grandmother apparently stated. Then, after he was born, his mother returned with him to Hawaii where his birth was REGISTERED on or about August 8th, 1961, in the public records office in Hawaii.

There is also a discrepancy in what hospital Barack Hussein Obama was born in, even if he was born in Hawaii. Reports by his own sister in two separate interviews state that he was born at two different hospitals-- Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital--in Honolulu.

The Times Herald even reports: "the senator's grandmother, brother and sister, who live in Kenya, believe they were present during Obama's birth in the African country." Here, the Times Herald uses the word that his family 'believe' he was born in Kenya (perhaps to avoid possible law suits by Obama's Truth Squad?).

Obama Born In Kenya? His Grandmother Says Yes
Filed under Opinion Editorials, Media objectivity, USA foreign policy, US elections, Law and courts on 10/13/2008 By: .

Someone is lying. According to Obama's Kenyan (paternal) grandmother, as well as his half-brother and half-sister, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii as the Democratic candidate for president claims. His grandmother bragged that her grandson is about to be President of the United States and is so proud because she was present DURING HIS BIRTH IN KENYA, in the delivery room. -This, according to several news sites and Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg (see video below) who is, surprisingly, a life long democrat himself. Berg is the former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and he has an impressive background in his activities as a democrat, but his support for the party seemingly stops when it comes to his trust in Barack Hussein Obama.

Many U.S. voters are suspicious of the Democratic candidate's past, and Berg filed a lawsuit to force Barack Hussein Obama to produce a certified copy of his original birth certificate to prove that he can run for the office of President of the United States. However, he is being fought. The DNC On Sept. 24 filed a motion to dismiss the Berg action. Why? What is there to hide? Why not produce the original birth certificate and be done with all the suspicions against Barack Hussein Obama?

A few months back, a birth certificate WAS posted on the internet which shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. Yet some say this birth certificate is a forgery and again, his grandmother states that she was present at the birth, in Kenya. So what is the truth?

One explanation is that Obama's mother Ann Dunham, flew to Kenya in 1961 with Obama's father to meet his family. According to some news reports, Ann Dunham, was not accepted well by her husband's family because she was white:
"Obama's family did not take to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama very well, because she was white, according to Sarah Obama. Shortly after she arrived in Kenya Stanley Ann decided to return to Hawaii because she later said, she did not like how Muslim men treated their wives in Kenya. However, because she was near term the airline would not let her fly until after the birth of her baby. Obama's grandmother said the baby—Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.—was born in Kenya and that shortly after he was born, Stanley Ann returned to Hawaii."

However, by the time she wanted to leave Kenya, it was during the late stages of her pregnancy. She was not able to board a plane because the airlines wouldn't allow women so close to birth to fly. It is instead believed, that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya as his grandmother apparently stated. Then, after he was born, his mother returned with him to Hawaii where his birth was REGISTERED on or about August 8th, 1961, in the public records office in Hawaii.

There is also a discrepancy in what hospital Barack Hussein Obama was born in, even if he was born in Hawaii. Reports by his own sister in two separate interviews state that he was born at two different hospitals-- Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital--in Honolulu.

The Times Herald even reports: "the senator's grandmother, brother and sister, who live in Kenya, believe they were present during Obama's birth in the African country." Here, the Times Herald uses the word that his family 'believe' he was born in Kenya (perhaps to avoid possible law suits by Obama's Truth Squad?).

Obama Born In Kenya? His Grandmother Says Yes
Filed under Opinion Editorials, Media objectivity, USA foreign policy, US elections, Law and courts on 10/13/2008 By: .

Someone is lying. According to Obama's Kenyan (paternal) grandmother, as well as his half-brother and half-sister, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii as the Democratic candidate for president claims. His grandmother bragged that her grandson is about to be President of the United States and is so proud because she was present DURING HIS BIRTH IN KENYA, in the delivery room. -This, according to several news sites and Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg (see video below) who is, surprisingly, a life long democrat himself. Berg is the former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and he has an impressive background in his activities as a democrat, but his support for the party seemingly stops when it comes to his trust in Barack Hussein Obama.

Many U.S. voters are suspicious of the Democratic candidate's past, and Berg filed a lawsuit to force Barack Hussein Obama to produce a certified copy of his original birth certificate to prove that he can run for the office of President of the United States. However, he is being fought. The DNC On Sept. 24 filed a motion to dismiss the Berg action. Why? What is there to hide? Why not produce the original birth certificate and be done with all the suspicions against Barack Hussein Obama?

A few months back, a birth certificate WAS posted on the internet which shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. Yet some say this birth certificate is a forgery and again, his grandmother states that she was present at the birth, in Kenya. So what is the truth?

One explanation is that Obama's mother Ann Dunham, flew to Kenya in 1961 with Obama's father to meet his family. According to some news reports, Ann Dunham, was not accepted well by her husband's family because she was white:
"Obama's family did not take to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama very well, because she was white, according to Sarah Obama. Shortly after she arrived in Kenya Stanley Ann decided to return to Hawaii because she later said, she did not like how Muslim men treated their wives in Kenya. However, because she was near term the airline would not let her fly until after the birth of her baby. Obama's grandmother said the baby—Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.—was born in Kenya and that shortly after he was born, Stanley Ann returned to Hawaii."

However, by the time she wanted to leave Kenya, it was during the late stages of her pregnancy. She was not able to board a plane because the airlines wouldn't allow women so close to birth to fly. It is instead believed, that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya as his grandmother apparently stated. Then, after he was born, his mother returned with him to Hawaii where his birth was REGISTERED on or about August 8th, 1961, in the public records office in Hawaii.

There is also a discrepancy in what hospital Barack Hussein Obama was born in, even if he was born in Hawaii. Reports by his own sister in two separate interviews state that he was born at two different hospitals-- Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital--in Honolulu.

The Times Herald even reports: "the senator's grandmother, brother and sister, who live in Kenya, believe they were present during Obama's birth in the African country." Here, the Times Herald uses the word that his family 'believe' he was born in Kenya (perhaps to avoid possible law suits by Obama's Truth Squad?).

JED - what a real non-thinking thread stopper! What? You don't know how to count to one? -Kevo